UK spying bank accounts: Eligibility Verification Measure
Comments
-
In fact, I used to teach programming in C, C++, and Visual Basic, among other software packages at colleges and training centres across London about 23 years ago, and therefore I believe I've a solid experience with programming/software programming.
My concern is rather the cost, as banking software programming is expensive due to its high complexity, stringent security requirements, and comprehensive features needed to manage financial transactions and comply with regulations.
I doubt banks would involve in this plan exactly as it's communicated by the government. I believe their involvement would have limitations and won't be going all the way to policing benefit recipients' bank accounts blanketly. This was also the view of a manager at my local Barclays bank whom I chatted with this afternoon.
0 -
Thanks for sharing your insights and your programming background. That kind of experience gives you a valuable perspective on how complex financial systems can be.
That said, once this bill becomes law, banks will not have the option to say no. Just like they had to comply with HMRC under money laundering rules, they will be legally required to take part in smart data schemes if designated. It is not voluntary, it is statutory.
And the costs? Banks have to foot the bill. Just look at the money laundering regime. Banks are charged supervision fees, application fees, and sanctions administration fees by HMRC to comply with something they did not choose. Those fees went up this year.
The same principle will apply if the DWP monitoring bill passes, it becomes a legal obligation, and banks have to comply and fund it, and continue paying for the privilege of enforcing a policy they never asked for.
0 -
It seems to me that it'll pass and finally become an act of parliament. What do you think, as your legal expertise is unmatched at least on this forum?
It's really fearful. Not because they can tell you that you don't quality for benefits because you've over £16,000 in savings, but also they can ask you to repay thousands, saying to you that you had over £16k in savings, say four years ago, even though you're now semi-destitute receiving only the basic rate of the UC.
The sad thing is that both Labour and the Cons are nowadays speaking the language of Farage's club unmoderated.
0 -
I have over £6k on paper, but due to Cost of Living payments disregarded my money is under £6k.
This was confirmed to me by UC during a financial review in late 2023.
So what happens when this bill goes through and my account gets flagged?
0 -
Edited my previous comment, as I've just thoroughly read "DWP’s Eligibility Verification powers in the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill: Factsheet."
It says, "Eligibility Verification Notices will be sent to banks and other financial institutions and will set out the specific information required. These will include the eligibility indicators which will be used to determine whether information should be shared with the DWP."
The factsheet does not disclose or detail what the Eligibility Verification Notices will exactly contain, or what the eligibility indicators are exactly.
Therefore, until the specific information that these will contain are disclosed and detailed, it's quite hard, if not impossible, to provide a reliable answer to your enquiry, which is also many other people's. I doubt they'll ever disclose such specific information that Eligibility Verification notices and eligibility indicators will contain.
It's really more serious and scarier than I thought before reading this factsheet.
0 -
welcome to the club
0 -
it probably will, however it’s unclear cause they arent stating what exactly are the Eligibility Verification Notices going to ask for.
However, if it gets flagged, the draft law it’s very clear that then your details will be passed on to a human being who will check your account etc.
0 -
Hi. Can i check something. Will the banks give DWP basic information (like name, account number) anyway or would this information only be passed on if something is flagged? Thanks
0 -
hi
Reading through the draft law, my understanding is that banks won’t be doing checks automatically, but it would be the DWP sending Eligibility Verification Notices to the bank. Then the bank will check the account and send back the info requested by DWP.
0 -
Under the proposed Fraud, Error and Recovery Bill, banks become data providers. They are not monitoring accounts or deciding who gets looked at. They simply hand over information when legally asked.
At present, the DWP can only request bank account data if they already suspect fraud. The new bill expands those powers. If the DWP’s internal systems flag a possible anomaly, such as a mismatch between declared income and other details, they can issue an Eligibility Verification Notice. Once issued, the bank is legally required to provide a snapshot of the account. This change is set out in the bill. It gives the DWP more power to request data without needing fraud suspicion first. The bank does not investigate or assess anything, it just supplies the data when asked.
2 -
hi. Are you saying they still have to suspect wrongdoing before requesting data
I thought the way this was going to work was the banks would be issued with a notice to look through accounts and report savings over 16k to the dwp.
Did I misunderstand?
0 -
"Under the proposed Fraud, Error and Recovery Bill, banks become data providers. They are not monitoring accounts or deciding who gets looked at. They simply hand over information when legally asked. The bank does not investigate or assess anything, it just supplies the data when asked."
This makes sense, as I couldn't believe that banks would be policing benefit recipients' bank accounts 24/7.
Things have lately changed even with Swiss banks, where worldwide dictators and Co. and crooks tend to amass their looted money. While traditional bank secrecy once made disclosure a criminal offense, modern Swiss law requires banks to conduct high due diligence on "Politically Exposed Persons" (PEPs) and report suspicious activity to prevent money laundering. They are required to freeze illicit assets if requested by a foreign government through a formal request.
0 -
It is important to clarify that banks will not be required to monitor every customer account. The proposed legislation does not introduce blanket surveillance, rather, it authorises a more targeted approach.
If enacted, the bill would grant the Department for Work and Pensions new powers to issue an Eligibility Verification Notice. This would compel banks to provide financial information about individuals who are claiming, or even just applying for, certain benefits.
The crucial change lies in the threshold for state access. At present, the DWP may only request such information where there is a reasonable suspicion of fraud. Under the proposed reforms, this safeguard would be removed. Merely making a claim for support could prompt the DWP to request account details directly from the claimant’s bank, regardless of any suspicion of wrongdoing.
Thus, while banks are not being asked to monitor everyone, they could be obliged to supply information about selected accounts identified by the DWP, without notifying the account holder. This is the central concern, targeted, covert access to private finances without consent or cause.
This proposal goes beyond a narrow focus on fraud prevention. It raises pressing questions about transparency, proportionality, and the expansion of state authority into private financial matters. Understandably, many, including myself, find such a shift deeply troubling.
0 -
hi
Found this. Looking at the tables at the bottom. It only mentions capital and abroad fraud.
I’m wondering why it doesn’t mention any other category?Thanks
0 -
That was interesting about Switzerland’s banking system. I do not know much about the Swiss banking system, but I do know how things have worked here in the UK for decades. Banks already run 24/7 algorithmic checks for suspicious activity, which is standard under anti-money laundering and fraud rules.
My concern with this Bill is not just the surveillance, it is the shift in tone. It reads as though claimants cannot be trusted to tell the truth, so the system will quietly check behind their backs instead.
And it does not stop there. The Bill also gives the DWP powers to recover money directly from people’s bank accounts and to ask the courts to suspend driving licences where welfare debts are unpaid.
Surely the claimant has a right to know if there is a problem with their benefits or claim, not just receive something out of the blue. That would be incredibly distressing. Transparency should be the baseline. If there is a query, why not simply ask the claimant for bank statements and explain what is being looked at?
Without proper safeguards, this approach risks normalising the quiet erosion of privacy, one automated check at a time.
0 -
Do you think it's going to become an act of parliament, as it has already completed its journey at the House of Commons and is now at the House of Lords, where I believe it would be approved? What do you think?
0 -
agreed, I would add:
The current draft doesn’t specify what exactly are those eligibility indicators and the eligibility verification notices so they could actually request any info they want under the title elegibility indicators and no one would know what info is being passed on to the DWP cause the information provided. won’t be shared with the claimant.
and the fact they could add any benefit they want to the bill without proper scrutiny.Only authoritarian states act like that. Thus Liebour government, I’m sorry to say needs to be replaced asap, really bad for democracy.
0 -
I find very hard to understand that there are 650 people going through this bill, with their advisors, plus all the lords and NONE of them have noticed these issues we are discussing here. Either we are completely mistaken or Parliament currently represents the worse of our society.
0 -
Britain’s once-fair welfare system is turning into a digital mass monitoring surveillance system without suspicion of fraudulent activity in which the very same financial institutions we rely upon are being made government spies without their consent. Banks would not be providing data on welfare recipients' bank accounts only, but also potentially those linked to those bank accounts/payments, including appointees and landlords, amongst others. Also, the so-called fraud indicators would trigger not only savings over a certain amount, but also frequent travel, amongst others, as such indicators are not revealed to the public.
Make no mistake, this is just the tip of the iceberg, as this intrusive mass financial surveillance would gradually be applied across the whole population incognito in the name of general administration.
Welcome to Big Brother's watch.
1 -
that’s exactly right, and people who support this law, will be next and they don’t even know it, lol.
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 15.6K Start here and say hello!
- 7.3K Coffee lounge
- 100 Games den
- 1.7K People power
- 137 Announcements and information
- 24.4K Talk about life
- 5.9K Everyday life
- 445 Current affairs
- 2.4K Families and carers
- 881 Education and skills
- 1.9K Work
- 542 Money and bills
- 3.7K Housing and independent living
- 1.1K Transport and travel
- 625 Relationships
- 1.5K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.5K Talk about your impairment
- 870 Rare, invisible, and undiagnosed conditions
- 929 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.1K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.2K Autism and neurodiversity
- 40.4K Talk about your benefits
- 6K Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- 19.9K PIP, DLA, ADP and AA
- 8.7K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.8K Benefits and income